A nation which requires its representatives to become
the avowed advocates or accusers of the prime minister of
religious or civil power, whether he is called a pope or a
president, has an equal prospect for civil and religious liberty. Civil and religious preachers and reformers, mar-
shalled into opposite parties, in all times and countries, are
the same sorts of patriots. Representation, limited to the
alternative of enlisting under one of these parties, ceases to
be an instrument of national self government, and dwindles
into an instrument of oppression for the prime minister or
his antagonist. We see and despise the old whig and tory
farce, or the new farce of ins and outs in England; we hold
in detestation the corruption which enlists the representatives of a rich and wise nation under the minister of executive power, or his expected successor; we deplore the contempt for puhlick characters, the apathy towards publick interest, and the surrender of the mind to selfishness, which this foolish imposition generates; and yet we insist that our representatives shall sacrifice their honesty and independence at the same shrine, and make themselves knaves in order to make us dupes.
The struggle for our presidency, like the struggle for the English administration, is the concurrent verdict of the contending parties, that executive power has already obtained the ascendency. When it depended on a Dionysius or a Timoleon, whether monarchy or republicanisn should reign
at Syracuse, monarchy was established. It is a government according to the will of one man, not the mode in which that will operates. If it operates by means of a patronage able to influence popular representatives, or by a national humour compelling its representatives to enlist themselves for or against one man's will, it is as much monarchy as if it operated in a different mode. No writer describes a republick, guided by the will of one of its officers, and depending on the chance of that officer's possessing republican or monarchical principles.
